In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
The above argument concludes that the city government should devote more money in their budget to riverside recreational facilities as water sports activities are sure to increase. This conclusion is based upon the premises that Mason city residents rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities and the state's has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, the argument's conclusion is not persuasive as the author takes number of assumptions that he fails to specify or/and properly justify.
Firstly, the author assumes that the surveys conducted are representative of the whole population of the city and are carried out by reliable sources. It assumes that if recreational activities are started, people in large number would turn out for participating. While this might be a possibilty, there is no assurance provided for it.
Secondly, the author fails to consider the possibility that the announced plan to clean up the river by the state might actually take time to be executed. In such a scenario it would not make any sense to devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
In addition to the above assumptions, the author incorrectly assumes that the only hinderance to the recreational activities in the Mason river are quality of river's water and river's smell. It might turn out that the flow of the river is either too slow for some of these activities or too high so as to pose as a danger to the participants.
Finally, the author does not give specific evidence to relate why the increase in recreational activities would be a positive thing for the city. In case if it attracts a good number of residents and foreign tourists, the revenue generated might be benificient for the city's development and local economy. Nonetheless, there would be many projects under consideration that the city government might undertake for this particular year.
In conclusion, the argument that city government should devote more money to riverside recreational facilities from this year's budget is rather weak. If the author demonstrated that cleaning of the river would actually lead to increase in recreational activities, the cleaning process would be completed soon and the city's council consider the budget increase as a good strategy for the development. However, in the current form the readers should be wary to accept the conclusion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | jason123 | 59 | view |
| 2020-01-20 | Ammu helen | 16 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | ramji90 | 82 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | shekhawat24 | 49 | view |
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas trends and concepts that help explain those facts 66
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville prove that Corporateville is a superior place to live then Middlesburg the home of SuperCorp s current headquarters Moreover Middleb 59
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 49
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 389 350
No. of Characters: 1995 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.441 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.129 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.872 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.786 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.577 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.383 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.679 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 396, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...s to clean up Mason River. However, the arguments conclusion is not persuasive as the aut...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 227, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... make any sense to devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...or some of these activities or too high so as to pose as a danger to the participants. ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, however, if, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2035.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 386.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27202072539 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09144546906 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.461139896373 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 654.3 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.7717107442 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.357142857 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5714285714 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.78571428571 5.70786347227 154% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284384407359 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0995098168054 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0672419719515 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14775550002 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0836416330552 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 20.0 11.9071856287 168% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.